Pharmacy Board of Australia - Pharmacist who imported medications not registered in Australia reprimanded for professional misconduct
Look up a health practitioner

Close

Check if your health practitioner is qualified, registered and their current registration status

Pharmacist who imported medications not registered in Australia reprimanded for professional misconduct

08 Jan 2020

A tribunal has reprimanded a formerly registered pharmacist after it was found he had engaged in professional misconduct.

The Pharmacy Board of Australia (the Board) referred Mr David Brewster to the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia (the tribunal).

In August 2019, the tribunal found that Mr Brewster, while registered as a pharmacist, imported medications, for supply:

  • that he did not purchase from their respective Registered Sponsors; and
  • were not registered for use in Australia on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG).

On different occasions he

  • imported and supplied Epipens (Adult) and Epipen Juniors, which were not approved for use in Australia and did not appear on the ARTG
  • directly imported Melatonin and Bio-Melatonin from an overseas supplier 
  • directly imported medications, including Gutron, Cyclogest, Cialis and Crinone, bypassing the Australian Therapeutic Goods regulatory framework and importing medications which were not listed on the ARTG.

Mr Brewster was not registered at the time of the tribunal’s decision, with his registration having earlier been cancelled as a result of separate disciplinary proceedings. 

The tribunal acknowledged that the disqualification period for this admitted conduct would ordinarily be 12 to 18 months. However, due to the unusual circumstances surrounding this matter and that this conduct been considered by the tribunal in separate 2017 proceedings when deciding not to reinstate Mr Brewster to the register, Mr Brewster was disqualified from applying for registration as a pharmacist for a period ending 30 September 2019.

Mr Brewster was reprimanded and ordered to $5,000 towards the Board’s costs of the proceedings.

The full decision is published on the eCourts website.

 
 
Page reviewed 8/01/2020